Back
to top
If the USSR existed today, what would its stance on climate change be?
Watch this thread
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Ferrograd
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Would it denounce it as western/imperialist/capitalist/Trotrskyist propoganda? It would no doubt be hidden from the citizens of the USSR, and significant weather events would not be reported. Would it instead take the opposite approach and attack capitalism for it?
What about Nazi Germany? Many people believe that the Nazis had a strong environmental message, and in recent years the ideology of eco fascism has grown, allegedly held by the attacker at the NZ mosque and the El Paso shooter. Would they instead blame the third world and aim to genocide them further?
What about Nazi Germany? Many people believe that the Nazis had a strong environmental message, and in recent years the ideology of eco fascism has grown, allegedly held by the attacker at the NZ mosque and the El Paso shooter. Would they instead blame the third world and aim to genocide them further?
0
reply
The Lonely don
Badges:
16
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
username4986690
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
I expect it be denial, th USSR were big fans of deny everything regardless of the evidence.
See Chernobyl for more details.
See Chernobyl for more details.
1
reply
Ferrograd
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
I expect it be denial, th USSR were big fans of deny everything regardless of the evidence.
See Chernobyl for more details.
I expect it be denial, th USSR were big fans of deny everything regardless of the evidence.
See Chernobyl for more details.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#5
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Would it denounce it as western/imperialist/capitalist/Trotrskyist propoganda? It would no doubt be hidden from the citizens of the USSR, and significant weather events would not be reported. Would it instead take the opposite approach and attack capitalism for it?
Would it denounce it as western/imperialist/capitalist/Trotrskyist propoganda? It would no doubt be hidden from the citizens of the USSR, and significant weather events would not be reported. Would it instead take the opposite approach and attack capitalism for it?
Also, the USSR was usually developing industry, regardless of the environmental costs.
Yet another thing is, that being as inefficient as it was, because of central planning, it would certainly refuse to spend resources decreasing emissions.
(Original post by Ferrograd)
What about Nazi Germany? Many people believe that the Nazis had a strong environmental message, and in recent years the ideology of eco fascism has grown, allegedly held by the attacker at the NZ mosque and the El Paso shooter. Would they instead blame the third world and aim to genocide them further?
What about Nazi Germany? Many people believe that the Nazis had a strong environmental message, and in recent years the ideology of eco fascism has grown, allegedly held by the attacker at the NZ mosque and the El Paso shooter. Would they instead blame the third world and aim to genocide them further?
If the Nazis faced the problem of climate change today, they'd most likely come to conclusion that emissions can be easily reduced if only the world's populations is reduced by a couple of billions. They'd have probably decided to exterminate most of Africa, or even released some genetically modified bacteria or virus, that would kill everyone who has not been vaccined against it.
I also acutally believe that that this method is already considered sectretly by some very important people in some countries, and they are going to release some lethal diseases before the 2050.
Last edited by PTMalewski; 2 years ago
1
reply
Talon
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report
#6
The USSR wasn't exactly a model country. I wouldn't worry too much about what they would have done.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report
#7
(Original post by Talon)
The USSR wasn't exactly a model country.
The USSR wasn't exactly a model country.
0
reply
username5027880
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
AntiMonarchist
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report
#9
The USSR would be crying out about it at the UN and clandestinely funding the extinction rebellion and Greta Thunberg phenomena to subvert the west's economy and industry while doing sweet f*** all about it internally.
2
reply
the bear
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report
#10
you can read here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
about how the Soviets handled nuclear waste, and how open they were about the world's 3rd worst nuclear accident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
about how the Soviets handled nuclear waste, and how open they were about the world's 3rd worst nuclear accident
1
reply
Ferrograd
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
(Original post by Talon)
The USSR wasn't exactly a model country. I wouldn't worry too much about what they would have done.
The USSR wasn't exactly a model country. I wouldn't worry too much about what they would have done.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
(Original post by PTMalewski)
I think they'd do both. Isolate their citizens from the information, and on the outside, blame the West.
Also, the USSR was usually developing industry, regardless of the environmental costs.
Yet another thing is, that being as inefficient as it was, because of central planning, it would certainly refuse to spend resources decreasing emissions.
The Generalplan Ost assumed that all Slavs should either be exterminated or turned into illiterate slaves, to create living space for Germans in the Eastern Europe.
If the Nazis faced the problem of climate change today, they'd most likely come to conclusion that emissions can be easily reduced if only the world's populations is reduced by a couple of billions. They'd have probably decided to exterminate most of Africa, or even released some genetically modified bacteria or virus, that would kill everyone who has not been vaccined against it.
I also acutally believe that that this method is already considered sectretly by some very important people in some countries, and they are going to release some lethal diseases before the 2050.
I think they'd do both. Isolate their citizens from the information, and on the outside, blame the West.
Also, the USSR was usually developing industry, regardless of the environmental costs.
Yet another thing is, that being as inefficient as it was, because of central planning, it would certainly refuse to spend resources decreasing emissions.
The Generalplan Ost assumed that all Slavs should either be exterminated or turned into illiterate slaves, to create living space for Germans in the Eastern Europe.
If the Nazis faced the problem of climate change today, they'd most likely come to conclusion that emissions can be easily reduced if only the world's populations is reduced by a couple of billions. They'd have probably decided to exterminate most of Africa, or even released some genetically modified bacteria or virus, that would kill everyone who has not been vaccined against it.
I also acutally believe that that this method is already considered sectretly by some very important people in some countries, and they are going to release some lethal diseases before the 2050.
India and China however are different because they are far more developed than subsaharan Africa.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report
#13
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Well, to be fair, mass population is obviously a problem, but Africa has practically zero carbon emissions compared to the west. In the first two weeks of 2020, the average British person will have produced more carbon emissions than citizens in seven african countries.
Well, to be fair, mass population is obviously a problem, but Africa has practically zero carbon emissions compared to the west. In the first two weeks of 2020, the average British person will have produced more carbon emissions than citizens in seven african countries.
They would come to conclusion, that a billion of humans produces X amount of CO2, so
(Original post by Hypotheticalpost2000Nazis;undefined)
'let's exterminate the least worthy sub-humans left, like we did with Jews and Slavs, and thus decrease emissions without damaging our economy'
'let's exterminate the least worthy sub-humans left, like we did with Jews and Slavs, and thus decrease emissions without damaging our economy'
Last edited by PTMalewski; 2 years ago
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
